they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level,

DEAR CANON

leave your customers alone - we bought your over priced camera - let us do what we want with it. besides - it did not cost you anything for ML to do their work.

~ we can sue you too you know - you have no business what we do with our cameras.

Really, sue Canon? Is that the advice you gave to George Hotz vs. Sony?

Honestly, I don't expect the ML team to break this. It would take too much work to benefit a small few. Plus they know the implications of possibly pissing off Canon. It's not impossible for Canon to lock out ML on ALL cameras, would you honestly want that to happen?

One of the differences mentioned was a heat sink in the 1dc, so even if ml or someone figured out a way to do 4k video on the 1dx, might it just overheat?

It might, BUT this was why i mentioned before that if Canon has a camera that has a gen 1 heatsink and the same camera with the advanced gen 2 heatsink . Wouldn't it make sense to just put the advanced heatsink on both and save money only having to produce 1?

they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level,

DEAR CANON

leave your customers alone - we bought your over priced camera - let us do what we want with it. besides - it did not cost you anything for ML to do their work.

~ we can sue you too you know - you have no business what we do with our cameras.

Really, sue Canon? Is that the advice you gave to George Hotz vs. Sony?

Honestly, I don't expect the ML team to break this. It would take too much work to benefit a small few. Plus they know the implications of possibly pissing off Canon. It's not impossible for Canon to lock out ML on ALL cameras, would you honestly want that to happen?

Seriously, some people just have no respect for IP.

Who is to say that the ML team will be the ones that break anything?

What if someone worked out a way to "flash" the 1DC firmware directly onto a 1DX via a 3rd party software plugin of some form.That way they are not tampering with the firmware at all, they are just loading a legit copy of the firmware onto a similar body. (basically the firmware itself isn't touched so no ability to sue, only the method for loading the firmware onto the camera).

BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.

BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.

So you're a lawyer now? You willing to bet your life savings to pay for the lawyer defending the idiot who'll crack Canon's 1DX firmware?

Ha, easy for you to say, you're not the one getting your hands dirty. I dare you to find someone who will.

What some here don't understand is that this is not about what's legally binding or not. Canon can bring you to court anytime of the day. They don't have to win the case, they just need to waste your time and money defending yourself.

So tell me, why would someone with the expertise to break Canon's 1DX firmware waste his time and effort giving away his work for free to a small number of 1DX users, at the risk of Canon's bloodhounds chewing him up until he's bankrupt?

BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.

So you're a lawyer now? You willing to bet your life savings to pay for the lawyer defending the idiot who'll crack Canon's 1DX firmware?

Ha, easy for you to say, you're not the one getting your hands dirty. I dare you to find someone who will.

What some here don't understand is that this is not about what legally binding or not. Canon can bring you to court anytime of the day. They don't have to win the case, they just need to waste your time and money defending yourself.

So tell me, why would someone with the expertise to break Canon's 1DX firmware waste his time and effort giving away his work for free to a small number of 1DX users, at the risk of Canon's bloodhounds chew him up until he's bankrupt?

Ok firstly dude, relax. Your taking this way too personally.

Secondly if the end user is NOT modifying the firmware itself but instead has found a way of tricking the installer into loading the 1DC firmware onto a 1DX. How is that modifying the firmware? Its no different to people loading updates to their Android phones that are not standard or the old Modem firmware update hacks of years past.

Secondly if the end user is NOT modifying the firmware itself but instead has found a way of tricking the installer into loading the 1DC firmware onto a 1DX. How is that modifying the firmware? Its no different to people loading updates to their Android phones that are not standard or the old Modem firmware update hacks of years past.

I'm pretty sure someone can do this. The question is if that someone has the balls to publish it for others to use.

You just don't get it do you? EULA's are not black and white, it's mostly gray. A big gray pool where high-priced lawyers swim in.

Logged

Speediakal

I can't wait for someone to try and get 4K video on the 1D X and have it burn up in a torrent of fire. Then everyone will realize that heatsinks are important and there's a reason for the price difference.

Also, the 1D C is in a niche market, there is no other camera comparable to it.

BMCC? Only 2K.RED? Fully loaded, costs $25K+ and is huge.JVC and Sonys new 4K camera? No interchangeable lenses.

Are half the people in here that are whining about this camera even looking to use 4K video in the near future? You realize most people rent?

I can't wait for someone to try and get 4K video on the 1D X and have it burn up in a torrent of fire. Then everyone will realize that heatsinks are important and there's a reason for the price difference.

Only one way to find out - could the whiners here chip in and give me $12k? I'll buy a 1DC, open it up and take the heatsink off, shoot 4k video and see how long it can record til it melts down.

You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.

And if someone does, do they get sued or just loose warranty?? And what if someone hacks it in Thailand where USA can't sue? Just asking...

what you do to your camera is your business you only loose your claim to any waranty.The person that offers modified software/frmware could be sued when that person isn't some anonymous entity on the net.

You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.

And if someone does, do they get sued or just loose warranty?? And what if someone hacks it in Thailand where USA can't sue? Just asking...

what you do to your camera is your business you only loose your claim to any waranty.The person that offers modified software/frmware could be sued when that person isn't some anonymous entity on the net.

You can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you can possibly want, no one is stopping you. Just don't get caught.

Honestly, I don't expect the ML team to break this. It would take too much work to benefit a small few. Plus they know the implications of possibly pissing off Canon. It's not impossible for Canon to lock out ML on ALL cameras, would you honestly want that to happen?

Seriously, some people just have no respect for IP.

Agree with you on the first point and being a non-profit group of volunteers even though legally I can't think of any leg Canon would have to stand on of course any lawsuit even without merit can cost stacks to defend.

But "no respect for IP" makes no sense at all to me. Even the DMCA which is pretty draconian in my opinion allows reverse engineering for the purpose of making one piece of software interoperate with another under section 1201(f). Under Australian law that 'no reverse engineering' stuff would probably be a borderline case of unconscionable conduct under consumer laws, of course once again if you had the money to defend it so I understand the stance of the ML team. But it doesn't exactly make Canon's stance either lawful or just.